(f) NOTE the Manifestation and Motion dated April 13, 2015

filed by the OSG, stating that Acting Solicitor General Florin T. Hilbay,
Assistant Solicitor General Hermes L. Ocampo and Senior State
EN BANC Solicitor Raymund I. Rigodon will appear as petitioner's
representatives in the oral arguments, and GRANT OSG's prayer it be
[G.R. Nos. 217126-27. April 14, 2015.] allowed to present a short PowerPoint presentation;
(g) GRANT the Motion for Leave (to File Supplemental Petition
HON. CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES, IN HER CAPACITY AS for Certiorari) dated April 10, 2015 filed by the OSG for the petitioner;
OMBUDSMAN, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS [6TH (h) NOTE the aforesaid Supplemental Petition for Certiorari
DIVISION] AND JEJOMAR ERWIN S. BINAY, JR., respondents. dated April 10, 2015; and
(i) APPROVE, by a vote of 7-5, the request of Atty. Theodore O.
Te, Assistant Court Administrator and Chief, Public Information Office,
NOTICE for permission to livestream the audio component of the oral
arguments in this case, subject to previous guidelines set by the
Court. DETACa

Sirs/Mesdames : At the hearing of this case this afternoon, the following counsel
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated appeared:
APRIL 14, 2015, which reads as follows: Counsel for Petitioner
"G.R. Nos. 217126-27 (Hon. Conchita Carpio Morales, in her capacity Office of the Solicitor General
as Ombudsman vs. Court of Appeals [6th Division] and Jejomar Erwin S.
Binay, Jr.). — The Court Resolved to Acting Solicitor General Florin T. Hilbay

(a) NOTE the Entry of Appearance dated April 13, 2015 filed by Assistant Solicitor General Hermes L. Ocampo
the Yorac-Sarmiento Arroyo Chua-Coronel and Reyes Law Firm, Unit
3103-A West Tower, Philippine Stock Exchange Centre, Exchange Senior State Solicitor Raymund I. Rigodon
Road, Ortigas Center, Pasig City 1605; entering its appearance as
Counsel for Private Respondent Binay
collaborating counsel for private respondent Jejomar Erwin S. Binay,
Jr., but DENY its request that it be furnished with copies of all orders, Atty. Claro F. Certeza
motions, manifestations and other pleadings filed in this case as only
the lead counsel is entitled to court processes; Atty. Mariano Sarmiento II
(b) NOTE the Position Paper (for the Oral Arguments on April
Atty. Maria Patricia L. Alvarez
14, 2015) dated April 13, 2015 filed by counsel for private respondent
Binay pursuant to the Advisory; Atty. Jose Julius R. Castro
(c) NOTE the Compliance (Table of Authorities for the Oral
Arguments on April 14, 2015) dated April 13, 2015 filed by counsel Atty. Sandra Marie Olaso-Coronel
for private respondent Binay pursuant to the Advisory; The critical issues for the purpose of the oral arguments have been
(d) NOTE the Ex-Parte Manifestation dated April 10, 2015 filed determined as follows in the Advisory:
by counsel for private respondent Binay, stating that the latter shall
MAIN ISSUE
be represented in the oral arguments by the following:
Whether or not this Court should issue a temporary restraining order
1. Atty. Claro F. Certeza
(TRO) to prohibit the Court of Appeals from conducting further
2. Atty. Mariano Sarmiento II proceedings in the consolidated cases and to stop the
3. Atty. Maria Patricia L. Alvarez implementation of the two assailed resolutions.

4. Atty. Jose Julius R. Castro I.

5. Atty. Sandra Marie O. Coronel Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman's Petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 raises errors of judgments and not errors of jurisdiction
(e) NOTE the Compliance (Short Paper and Table of Authorities) contrary to the requirements of the Rules of Court.
dated April 13, 2015 filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
for the petitioner pursuant to the Advisory; aScITE
II.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Whether or not Section 14 of the Ombudsman Act defeats the power
of the Supreme Court and/or the Court of Appeals to exercise original
jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari and prohibition seeking to ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
question acts of the Ombudsman. Clerk of Court
III. By:
Whether or not Section 14 prohibits the determination by the
Supreme Court and/or the Court of Appeals, in the exercise of its
original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari and prohibition, of (SGD.) FELIPA B. ANAMA
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Office of the Ombudsman Deputy Clerk of Court En Banc
relating to its issuance of a preventive suspension order, including its
appreciation of (1) the strength of the evidence; (2) the length or Footnotes
period of suspension; and (3) the applicability of certain defenses.ATICcS

1. G.R. No. 12942, September 16, 1999, 356 SCRA 787, J. Regalado, En Banc.
IV.
2. G.R. No. 201643, March 12, 2014, 719 SCRA 209, J. Reyes, Third Division.
Whether or not Section 14 completely removes from the Supreme
Court and/or the Court of Appeals the power to issue ancillary 3. G.R. No. 184083, November 19, 2013, 709 SCRA 681, J. Perez, En Banc.
injunctive writs in relation to the Office of the Ombudsman's conduct
of an investigation.
V.
Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman's determination that the
preventive suspension of a respondent in an administrative
disciplinary case is "timely, proper and necessary" a finding of fact, or
of law, or a mixture of both.
Further, whether or not such a finding is conclusive on the courts,
such that a contrary view from the courts will only "delay and
interfere" with the ongoing investigation.
VI.
Whether or not the Court of Appeals should be allowed to first
address, in a Rule 65 proceeding, all questions raised over the Office
of the Ombudsman's issuance of a preventive suspension order in
view of the rulings in the cases of Fabian v. Desierto; 1 Ombudsman v.
Capulong; 2 and Dagan v. Court of Appeals. 3
VII.
Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman's petition for certiorari
and prohibition is the plain, speedy and adequate remedy to assail
the Court of Appeal's Resolution in the Petition for Contempt.
In accordance with the same Advisory, the oral arguments commenced
with the interpellation by the Members of the Court. Hon. Conchita Carpio
Morales, in her capacity as Ombudsman, was also interpellated by the
Members of the Court on issues that the Court believes need to be answered
by the Ombudsman herself.
For lack of material time, Chief Justice Sereno announced, in open
court, that the continuation of the hearing of this case is SET on April 21,
2015, Tuesday, at 2:00 P.M., same venue." Leonardo-De Castro, J., on official
business. Peralta, J., no part. Villarama, Jr., J., on official leave. (adv1) TIADCc

Very truly yours,

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com